Eastern Europe never had any bi-national states.

I would have to disagree. Czechoslovakia was a binational state of sorts consisting of Czechs and Slovaks. Continuing on this example – this was actually a positive and bloodless separation of peoples. They still have a lot of overlap today ie students from Slovakia studying in Prague or Czech folks on Slovak TV shows. This is without considering the later integration into the European Union.

As for Gila’s comment, I am guessing she is referring to the Balkans or the the overall USSR/Soviet sphere. Focusing in particular on the Yugoslavia example, they only had some kind mutual unity/ Yugoslav ID under Tito, which all went to hell once he died. I think every group there nearly had a war with every other ethnic group there… This was an example where ethnic tension and identity didn’t allow for the option of adopting a unified country, even though the parties involved – at least a generation or two – were raised under common social, civil, etc life style. There had been a Yugoslav ID, but instead it disintegrated even with “mixed” families ie Croat/Serbian, Albanian Serbian, whatever other combination you prefer.

I find people work together better when they have a common goal (the building of a state) then when their goals diverge (the building of two separate states).

Building a state does not guarantee that people will work “better” together as I’ve noted above. There are many possible incentives that could bring people together (or the opposite of course). Trade or general financial incentives is one such example. Having an Ally during times of war would be a second point. What is more significant though for achieving any kind of mutual cooperation is “positive” communication with the willingness and freedom to do so between various parties. This point, especially with parties that have had long term animosity, makes it very difficult. The more muted idealist in me would also like to add that perhaps the basic goal of having your children live a better and peaceful life would be a significant driving force, but from studying various cases and situations… I would have to let the cynic within me say that it’s not enough.

From what I understand, A bi-national state is shared rule (maybe I am wrong). Just because it is impossible at the moment does not mean it will be in the future. I find people work together better when they have a common goal (the building of a state) then when their goals diverge (the building of two separate states).

but, why the heck can’t we tell them: “Listen, in 6,8 month (whatever) we’re taking the Army out of there. You can leave before and get compensation for your houses and businesses, but if you don’t leave, you’ll be on your own and will be part of the Palestinian state…” – I admit that I’m saying that with a sheepish and bad grin, because it’s obvious that none of them would want to stay – and if they would – may God have mercy on them!! -

I agree with you to some extent on this. I do not understand why, if we can have an Arab Minority, a Palestinian state cannot have a Jewish minority. I suspect that a lot of the settlers would stay, however. Furthermore, it could be a problem for us. Every time there was a terrorist attack in one of the Jewish communities in Palestine (and there would be, sooner or later), it would raise debate here that we should take the area over. (There are crazy people on both sides of this fence).

Binational state…because we have seen how well that has worked in Eastern Europe?

I am actually one of those Israelis who is afraid to go into Arab communities. In my seven years here, I have visited Abu Gosh and Jaffa. And that is really it. I am starting to take part in a dialogue/education group which brings together wounded from both sides. On the one hand, it all feels like an exercise in futility. On the other hand, I have to do something. Even if we come to nothing, I have to know that I tried to fix matters, in my small way.

Good for you for standing up! קל הכבוד לך!

The bi-national state idea does not seem to be popular anywhere! Even less so among political activists on both sides in America. This is no doubt due to the fact that this solution takes way more effort – effort that no one wants to put in. Also, as Esra’a described in the article she posted:many in the Arab world are obsessed with Israel/Palestine, a trend matched by many Jews and Arabs in the West. In fact, I find these people are often more radical than those who are directly involved (college is filled with brainless idealistic idiots who see things in black and white and don’t believe in sharing responsibility, such is the downside of the idealism of youth). Does this sound right? With such wonderful external support, a bi-national state could maybe form in a couple thousand years provided that thermonuclear war has not occurred.

In reality, a bi-national state will have to happen over a couple generations – people need to get to understand each other first. I feel strongly that a two-state solution is perpetual war masked under a peaceful solution. This plan is supported by players who I fell have vested interest in long term peace. You cannot have two peoples who have bad blood live next to each other and be isolated in two separate nations with armies and expect not to have anything happen; especially since New Palestine is going to be created hastily in the same way “New Iraq” was. That turned out well. Either way, we will need a new generation on both sides who is more conciliatory in order for any long-term solution to work. The question is, what do we do in the meantime?

Also, Herzl’s novel (not Das Judenstaat, some other book whose name escapes me) did have a bi-national state, though I heard some did not believe it to be possible the way he described it. I’ll find that book and read it.

Esra’a,

I read the article on obsession and enjoyed found it to be right on target for more than just Arabs and Muslims. I read the comments as well…that turned into a shitstorm fast ( I have no intention of reviving the topic discussed). But, that seems inevitable in any Israel/Palestine debate. From what I have experienced, many debates on the issue are verbal melees. It seems here though that progress is being made in that regard that outpaces many other media sources/blogs (judging by some of the other threads I have seen). Thank you for letting me post.

I’d love to sit down with you and I’m sure we’d talk for whole nights in a row. I, and many other people would LOVE that bi-national state. I could imagine nothing better. But this is NOT the opinion of a large majority of Israelis. All they want is “get rid of the Arabs” in one way or another, and to be among themselves. Even if they treat them (right now) as second class citizens, Israeli Arabs (or: Palestinians with Israeli citizenship) are more respected than non-Israeli Palestinians. And once the war finished, Israel will have to deal with a LOT of internal issues – to an extent that some say that in continuing the war with the Palestinians, the government is just trying to avoid an internal war that could well break out once there is no “external” ennemy any more to “glue” us together…

But besides that, I don’t think that the two states will be much in friction. Both people would be so relieved that the slaughter is over, they would leave each other alone. That’s my feeling – I don’t know if I’m right.

Concerning the population exchange you talk about, there sure will be some movement – but that’s part of the deal, I think. Once the movement done, things will settle down and clear identities will create themselves.

Concerning the settlers who “so much want to live in the Palestinian territories”, I must say that my personal position always shocks my fellow Israelis – who for a very big part DON’T SUPPORT the settlers and would love to get them out of the WB. But I don’t really get it why we (Israel) must “force” them to leave if they want to stay that much. The forced pullout from Gaza has traumatized the country and hardened the WB settlers resistance.

I’m not in favor of removing the army and leaving them behind, as France did in Algeria – but, why the heck can’t we tell them: “Listen, in 6,8 month (whatever) we’re taking the Army out of there. You can leave before and get compensation for your houses and businesses, but if you don’t leave, you’ll be on your own and will be part of the Palestinian state…” – I admit that I’m saying that with a sheepish and bad grin, because it’s obvious that none of them would want to stay – and if they would – may God have mercy on them!! – They’ve been way to horrible towards the Palestinians (maybe you’ve seen my previous post here “A Trip to Settler-Land”) to be able to stay there in peace. And they also are the ones who hate the Palestinians the most. So, if the government would act like this, they wouldn’t have to forcibly evacuate anyone, but the settlers would “run”. Whenever I say this people tell me that I’m “cruel” – but frankly, I can’t see cruelty in this. Letting them have what they want, bowing in front of them as we do now will be more cruel when it comes to the actual dismantlement of the settlements than making them understand very clearly that the government has made a decision. (If ONLY the Israeli government would MAKE a decision!! – but that’s another discussion).

Now, remembering some of the comments I had when I posted my previous report, I want to add that the settlers I saw that day are NOT all of the settlers. It’s true that the government above all is responsible for the whole mess, not the settlers themselves. They shouldn’t have been allowed to go there in the first place!! – AND: Many settlers in the WB aren’t religious and went to live there mostly for economical reasons, maybe also for the beauty of the landscape, but not ideologically motivated like those I met and described…

By the way – not many are aware of the fact that Herzl’s vision of a “Jewish State” was a vision of a state where Arabs and Jews would live peacefully together! … But right now, I think that unfortunately this vision is nothing more than a dream.

I would say that this could also apply to the palestinians as well. Many arab news sources and governments do their fair share of fear-mongering – by portraying Jews as apes and pigs who want to take over the world. It keeps people’s attention away from the corrupt actions of their leaders

Yes. This is why MideastYouth.com exists in the first place.

Concerning your last sentence, you might be interested in this post as well where I spoke about this at length.

You are a good commenter and should stick around.

The organization is stil forming but I think its an instresting idea.

If two states are to exist, the settlers who so badly want to be in the west bank should be part of the new Palestinian state and renounce Israeli citizenship. Arabs in Israel who decide to join the new state also give up Israeli citizenship. If those Arabs would rather not join New Palestine, then the remain Israeli and do not get citiznship in the new state. Then both peoples are interspersed among each other and will be forced to coexist and work together for a better future (I hope).

In terms on compensation, Israel has donated a lot to the PA already, and it certainly should not foot the bill when many Arab nations were responsible for the crisis as well. They never did ask the Palestinians for permission to start a war – they went ahead and attacked and told the Palestinians to leave while they removed the Jews. Why shouldn’t they be held accountable – especially considering the loss of Jewish property in many of those nations. Enough with the blame game…it might be best if no money changes hands because it is unlikely that an agreement will be reached. Money is also a very touchy subject. Maybe Palestinians should have right of return to the Palestinian state instead…

Or, there could just be a bi-national state and then no one compensates anyone because they would share all the land and resources. It could have separate Jewish, Arab, and mixed regions if necesary. Jews tend to frown upon the idea of being a minority since the holocaust – you just dont know when things could take a turn for the worse (the fear always exists and understanding that it does is critical). Hence, making semi-autonomous regions could ease that fear. There would be no Jewish state, but then again, “Islamic” states dont really work that well either.

Alright, I’m just tossing out some ideas for everyone to think about. But, I do truly believe that making whole states based on ethnic/racial/religious lines leads to trouble. A Jarab state might be more effective in the long run if the next generations are taught to respect instead of hate or fear. It will no doubt take more effort than the two state solution but the return will be higher.